CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.7/10
1.9 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaA scientific possibility becomes a terrifying reality when the most powerful force in the universe threatens to hurtle home.A scientific possibility becomes a terrifying reality when the most powerful force in the universe threatens to hurtle home.A scientific possibility becomes a terrifying reality when the most powerful force in the universe threatens to hurtle home.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Patrick John Walton
- Agent Means
- (as Patrick Walton)
Gregory Carew
- Bone
- (as Greg Carew)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
The Hallmark Network has chosen to create a series of movies to supplement their "Hall of Fame" product. They are off to a decidedly mixed start with "Supernova." Certainly, their timing could not have been worse, given events in New Orleans. Too bad they couldn't have scheduled another film for this time.
"Supernova" would a made a pretty good two hour disaster movie. Cut out the "dime store" space special effects and the trite "serial killer" subplot and you'd have something pretty memorable. Unfortunately, the "solar flare" effects look about as realistic as Disney 2D animation. While not particularly surprising, given the limited effects budget for TV fare, the bad "space effects' contrast jarringly with the pretty good "earth effects" on display.
Peter Fonda plays, flatly, a world famous astronomer who predicts the sun will go supernova (enlarge, then explode) within a month (or, was it a week). Luke Perry plays an astrophysicist(!), also flatly, and is the principal protagonist. Lance Henriksen plays his stock baddie. The women come off much better in the acting department, most notable are Tia Carrere (as a government agent), Emma Samms (as a crusading TV news commentator), Clemency Burton-Hill (as a scientist) and an unnamed actress who plays Fonda's bartender-squeeze.
Jettison an hour and "Supernova" would be good enough for a "7". As presented, however, it barely squeaks by as a "5".
"Supernova" would a made a pretty good two hour disaster movie. Cut out the "dime store" space special effects and the trite "serial killer" subplot and you'd have something pretty memorable. Unfortunately, the "solar flare" effects look about as realistic as Disney 2D animation. While not particularly surprising, given the limited effects budget for TV fare, the bad "space effects' contrast jarringly with the pretty good "earth effects" on display.
Peter Fonda plays, flatly, a world famous astronomer who predicts the sun will go supernova (enlarge, then explode) within a month (or, was it a week). Luke Perry plays an astrophysicist(!), also flatly, and is the principal protagonist. Lance Henriksen plays his stock baddie. The women come off much better in the acting department, most notable are Tia Carrere (as a government agent), Emma Samms (as a crusading TV news commentator), Clemency Burton-Hill (as a scientist) and an unnamed actress who plays Fonda's bartender-squeeze.
Jettison an hour and "Supernova" would be good enough for a "7". As presented, however, it barely squeaks by as a "5".
The Sun cuts loose and attacks the Earth! This must surely be one of the worst movies ever made - an abysmal script, ridiculous sets and effects, woeful actors, outrageously poor accents, unbelievable story, ridiculous conclusion, etc, etc It's like a Godzilla movie, but without the finely-tuned character development and deeply thought-out plot - hell, it makes Godzilla look like Shakespeare.
Set in Sydney - oh really?? did they do ANY research AT ALL? Do they have any clue what an Australian accent actually sounds like? Peter Fonda has a sort of minor role - boy, he must have been pretty hard up for money to accept a role in such a turkey.
Plan 9 From Outer Space updated to the 21st century!
Set in Sydney - oh really?? did they do ANY research AT ALL? Do they have any clue what an Australian accent actually sounds like? Peter Fonda has a sort of minor role - boy, he must have been pretty hard up for money to accept a role in such a turkey.
Plan 9 From Outer Space updated to the 21st century!
Why, oh why, do I keep getting suckered by promotional trailers for DVDs? Anyway, if you have seen the promo trailers for this film, be warned: they are clearly concerning another film never made, brief clips of which showing up in this one for no discernible reason whatsoever.
The principle problem here is a script that thinks it's a remake of "The Day After" but which would fit just about any daytime soap-opera. Since the premise of the film derives from astro-physics, the finale - a typically empty 'happy ending', having absolutely no grounding in any science whatsoever - makes no sense whatsoever.
Although the film actually avoids religion, let's put the matter in religious terms for clarification: Imagine Judgment Day; and God is really pee-ed off and decides no one is worth saving. Suddenly, Peter Pan's Tinkerbell pops up and reminds God that if he really really believes, creation can be saved. God smiles down on a half-dozen soap-opera stars (no, they haven't repented, what's to repent?), and suddenly we're all back in Eden.... - Scientifically speaking, that's "Supernova".
What brilliant con-artist convinced anybody this film could be made? And who are the emotionally troubled people who would like this garbage? By the way, if you're wondering whether one could watch this turkey all the way through, the answer is no; after giving it some 20 minutes, sheer boredom demanded I started skipping scenes sequentially trying to find something interesting to watch. I didn't. But I did watch the whole of the finale to see if there was anything important I'd missed. There wasn't.
And there wouldn't be anything important missed if you skipped the whole film.
The principle problem here is a script that thinks it's a remake of "The Day After" but which would fit just about any daytime soap-opera. Since the premise of the film derives from astro-physics, the finale - a typically empty 'happy ending', having absolutely no grounding in any science whatsoever - makes no sense whatsoever.
Although the film actually avoids religion, let's put the matter in religious terms for clarification: Imagine Judgment Day; and God is really pee-ed off and decides no one is worth saving. Suddenly, Peter Pan's Tinkerbell pops up and reminds God that if he really really believes, creation can be saved. God smiles down on a half-dozen soap-opera stars (no, they haven't repented, what's to repent?), and suddenly we're all back in Eden.... - Scientifically speaking, that's "Supernova".
What brilliant con-artist convinced anybody this film could be made? And who are the emotionally troubled people who would like this garbage? By the way, if you're wondering whether one could watch this turkey all the way through, the answer is no; after giving it some 20 minutes, sheer boredom demanded I started skipping scenes sequentially trying to find something interesting to watch. I didn't. But I did watch the whole of the finale to see if there was anything important I'd missed. There wasn't.
And there wouldn't be anything important missed if you skipped the whole film.
What can I say about this? Well, firstly, there is no need for me to give a summary of this mini-series when people can just easily refer to the standard disaster film formula: smart guy with all the answers, pretty but tough woman, cute kid, corrupt government agent/politician/business man who is only interested in some greedy proposition and some CGI effects. There isn't a sweet little dog that, of course, survives deadly situations but the script writer does toss in a serial killer who escapes. There are also destruction by meteors that seem to be intelligent with the way they just know how to land on structures of significance ('Oh look, there's the Taj Mahal- let's blow it up. There's the Sydney Opera House- get it! Look the scientist who can set everyone straight; he has to go!').
Basically, 'Supernova' has been done many times before and the previous efforts have been much superior. The science behind the concept is so ridiculous that they resort to techno-babble in the hopes the audience won't notice. Although the story is supposedly set in Australia, the director and the actors don't seem to know this and are confused whether the location should be America, Australia, the UK or South Africa (the shift in scenery and accents just gets irritating after the first half-hour). While one can't blame the CGI effects for being far from great given the lower budget of the series, this could have been avoided if it hadn't bothered to show off.
What could have save 'Supernova' was if the plot was solid and the characters were interesting but it didn't even have that. The characters were so flat and uninspiring that they just left the audience praying that sun would just swallow these people up, and the plot was tedious and too drawn-out.
If you want a disaster film, stick with 'The Day After Tomorrow' or 'Independence Day'. They too may be predictable but they know it and do it well!
Basically, 'Supernova' has been done many times before and the previous efforts have been much superior. The science behind the concept is so ridiculous that they resort to techno-babble in the hopes the audience won't notice. Although the story is supposedly set in Australia, the director and the actors don't seem to know this and are confused whether the location should be America, Australia, the UK or South Africa (the shift in scenery and accents just gets irritating after the first half-hour). While one can't blame the CGI effects for being far from great given the lower budget of the series, this could have been avoided if it hadn't bothered to show off.
What could have save 'Supernova' was if the plot was solid and the characters were interesting but it didn't even have that. The characters were so flat and uninspiring that they just left the audience praying that sun would just swallow these people up, and the plot was tedious and too drawn-out.
If you want a disaster film, stick with 'The Day After Tomorrow' or 'Independence Day'. They too may be predictable but they know it and do it well!
Oh where to begin? Leaving the incredibly bad science out of it (and believe me, as a former astronomer I gotta say the science was so bad!), the people who made this movie did obviously NO research on what Australia is supposed to look like.
Not only did just about everyone have an American accent (and most of those who affected an Aussie accent need to fire their dialect coach), but just about every detail was way, way off. I could handle some of the small stuff (i.e. phone numbers here have 8 digits, not 7), but they got some pretty major stuff wrong too.
Whlle the cars were at least driving on the left, they all had the wrong kind (possibly European) of licence plates. Aussie plates don't look anything like what they had. Imagine a movie set in New York where all the cars had bright pink tags.
But the BIGGEST blunder that anyone who had ever set foot on this continent would recognise: Australia doesn't have the death penalty. Like in most civilised nations, it was abolished years ago. This was a major plot point in the movie, and if they had bothered to do a lick of research, they would have known they needed a major rewrite.
Sloppy
Not only did just about everyone have an American accent (and most of those who affected an Aussie accent need to fire their dialect coach), but just about every detail was way, way off. I could handle some of the small stuff (i.e. phone numbers here have 8 digits, not 7), but they got some pretty major stuff wrong too.
Whlle the cars were at least driving on the left, they all had the wrong kind (possibly European) of licence plates. Aussie plates don't look anything like what they had. Imagine a movie set in New York where all the cars had bright pink tags.
But the BIGGEST blunder that anyone who had ever set foot on this continent would recognise: Australia doesn't have the death penalty. Like in most civilised nations, it was abolished years ago. This was a major plot point in the movie, and if they had bothered to do a lick of research, they would have known they needed a major rewrite.
Sloppy
¿Sabías que…?
- ErroresA star's fate is dependent on its mass. The Sun simply does not have enough mass to become a supernova, which requires a mass at least 8 times that of the Sun.
- Citas
Dr. Austin Shepard: You make a good drink.
waitress: You make a good drunk.
- ConexionesReferenced in Best of the Worst: Our DVD and Blu-ray Collection (2019)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Супернова
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Supernova (2005) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda